By Gabriel Amalu
The disagreement between Twitter and President Muhammadu Buhari has surprisingly been elevated to a dispute between the company and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. And with the federal government adamant, despite the misgivings of majority of G7 members to the banning of Twitter in Nigeria, the nation may unnecessary be exposed to avoidable international economic backlash. This column therefore urges for a quick détente, before a private dispute degenerates into an international dog-fight.
Obviously, Nigeria is dealing with enough catastrophe, and should not add an a new international economic war-front to the multifarious crisis that made the United States Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) label Nigeria a failing state. What Twitter did to President Buhari, it also did to President Donald Trump, while he was the President of USA, and the dispute was never elevated as an affront to the country.
To tag what Twitter did to President Buhari as a destabilisation plot against Nigeria is to mix-up issues; for while the president is a symbol of our nation, he is not the nation. To think otherwise is to elevate him to an absolute monarch in the nature of the failed Louis XIV who at the height of his reign, had quipped: ‘L’etat c’est moi’ (I am the state). In fairness to President Buhari, he has never equated himself to the state, and at the twilight of his regime, those surrounding him should not misguide him.
Before the federal government’s hammer fell of Twitter, the Honourable Minister for Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, accused Twitter of engaging in double standard. He observed that Twitter did not delete posts by Nnamdi Kanu, of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who had posted incendiary posts worse than what President Muhammadu Buhari did. To affirm merit to the accusation, Twitter struck down the offensive posts by Nnamdi Kanu.
While some are concerned that the minister has unintentionally elevated Nnamdi Kanu, by comparing him to President Buhari, this column is more concerned about the issue of double standards, which the minster rightfully denounced. So, in condemning the double standards by Twitter, it also argues that double standard should be unacceptable and resisted in any decent relationship, by all and sundry.
Talking about double standard, it urges the minister to introspect over allegations of double standard by President Buhari’s government, which many believe is the root cause of the crisis afflicting the social cohesion of our country. If the complaints are genuine, it will be fair and equitable that the government should make amends. It is also important to note that some of the major complaints against the government also touch on the provisions of the constitution, upon which the democratic enterprise hangs.
Section 14(3) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) provides without equivocation that: “The composition of the government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few state or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies.”
Will the minister say that the present government has obeyed this kernel provision of the 1999 constitution, as to reap the benefits envisaged by its obedience? With complaints against the lopsided appointments by the federal government, does it not follow that the federal government is engaged in double standards? Again, section 16(2)(a) of the constitution provides: “The state shall direct its policy towards ensuring: the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development.”
One example. Considering the decision of the president to approve the establishment of a standard gauge railway line, an important factor of economic development, from his home state to a neighbouring country, while his minister for transportation is offering about one-half of the country the archaic and out-dated single gauge; would it not be appropriate to levy accusation of double standards against the government? Of course, such double standards will not enhance “federal character, promote national unity and also command national loyalty.”
The greatest challenge faced by our dear country is that, a large chunk of her citizens have withdrawn their loyalty to the country, substantially because they perceive the country as being run on double standards. Of course, some of the challenges predate the government of President Buhari, but it appears to have been aggravated under his watch. For one, in a recent interview, the president vehemently denied the allegation of lopsided appointments, even as his opponents reel out statistics to counteract his assertion.
More importantly, since there are those who disagree with the perception of Mr President, the ideal reaction should be to engage the claimants in debates in sundry manners. If the president is convinced that his appointments are not lopsided, and that his military chiefs are appointed because of their proven field experiences, his men should present facts to counter those claiming otherwise. As the saying goes, facts are sacred.
Regardless of how angry the president has become, this column strongly advises him to change his strong-arm tactics in dealing with those who hold a different view as to how to resolve the lingering national questions. Of course, this column decries and condemns the orchestrated violence by non-state actors to pursue their misgivings against the government. But the president must realise that his dithering in correcting the anomaly, rather escalates the crisis.
With less than two years in power, substantial part of which he will be a lame-duck president, President Buhari must avoid being remembered as a dictatorial civilian president. If he does not rein in the war-mongers around him, the country may degenerate into chaos by the time the regime winds down. The international community may also make him and our country a pariah, for the excessive force currently on display, especially in the southeast, which amounts to abuse of the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens.
The perception out there is that while the president is soft both in words and actions against the armed herdsmen that have been wreaking havoc in several rural communities across the country, he has been vehement and trident in condemning separatist groups, like IPOB. While the president is entitled to his private idiosyncrasies, he must exercise due diligence in matters of national importance and public perception.
As we have stated here severally, comparatively, the president has not done badly in terms of performance in infrastructural development. He must therefore not allow his mismanagement of the national fault lines, and his foreign relations tactics, to mare every achievement.
